Mindful
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #141
But back to an original premise; and supposition.
How might Iraq have fared if the King had not been killed?
The UN had already got Saddam to destroy his weapons. Step One of the UN mission had thus been accomplished. Step Two was of equal importance, that being cooperating with Saddam over the (first) CIA inspection team, removing it, and replacing it with an international team eager to find out the truth. Perhaps for the first time Saddam could feel the UN was not entirely in Washington's back pocket and that it would move forward justly. We can only speculate on any further cooperation because the US violated international law and murdered him. We'll never know for sure. We can only say that with the UN calling the shots there was at least a chance. All good things begin with an opportunity.
How many times must I make this point ?
THERE WAS NEVER ANY PROOF AVAILABLE THAT SADDAM HAD DESTROYED HIS 'WEAPONS' (I.E WMDS). THE WHOLE POINT WAS TO EITHER GET THAT PROOF, OR TO SEE TO IT THAT SADDAM'S REGIME COULDN'T USE ANY.
Is this clear yet ????
Prevarication from Saddam prevented this from ever being established, one way or the other. Question .. if you've got nothing to hide, why not be straightforward and candid about the full truth ? Saddam was never any of that, he couldn't be trusted, so, action was rendered necessary.
Action was duly taken. It had to be.
I remember Hans Blix expressing doubts about the paperwork UN weapons inspectors were examining.